January 29, 2010

Unfortunately I missed the State of Union Address, but I thought these thoughts on it were provoking.

Speaking of our humanitarian efforts around the world during last night’s State of the Union address, President Obama said:

“America must always stand on the side of human dignity and freedom.”

Yes, Mr. President, America must stand for these things, they are the principles that our country was founded on. Unfortunately, after 37 years of Government sanctioned abortion, we as a country have denied the dignity of the weakest and most vulnerable members of our own society and deprived them of their first and most basic human freedom – the right to Life.

Seems to me, if we’re going to promote human dignity and freedom throughout the world, we should begin by promoting it right here in our own country.

January 19, 2010

Matt Chandler recently preached on missions and evangelism. His perspective on how missions relates to his recent diagnoses of brain cancer is really convicting.

Mission is about the reign and rule of God…Evangelism isn’t something we do, it is the lenses by which we see the entire world. We don’t do evangelism, our whole lives are about the rule and reign of God almighty…Six weeks ago when I found out malignant brain cancer I began a whole new set of relationships that in the end are about the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the rule and reign of God. I met a neurosurgeon and I am not going in thinking, “This is a neurosurgeon,” but instead I think, “The Lord is crossing my path with a neurosurgeon. If he is a brother I will try to encourage him. If not, I will try to reveal faith in Christ and the cross of Christ to him.”

January 14, 2010

Below is an excerpt from an editorial that Bart Stupak wrote for The Detroit News. You can read the rest here. Let’s continue to pray for him as he defends the rights of the preborn. (Emphasis added is mine).

There continues to be a great deal of discussion surrounding abortion language in the health care bill and the Stupak-Ellsworth-Pitts amendment specifically. Let me be clear: Our amendment maintains current law that says no federal funding for abortion.

Further, not one person has been able to show where the actual language in our amendment is different from language in the Hyde amendment that has been in effect for the past 33 years.

Under our amendment, private plans within the health insurance exchange can offer abortion services and individuals purchasing plans with their own money can choose a plan that covers abortion as long as they are not receiving government subsidies to help pay for the plan. Our amendment even includes provisions that explicitly state individuals, even those who receive federal subsidies, may purchase separate abortion coverage with private funds.

While many accusations have been thrown around in recent months, the intent behind the Stupak-Ellsworth-Pitts amendment is simple and clear — to continue current law of no federal funding for abortions.

Two recent polls from Washington Post-ABC News and CNN found 61 percent of Americans do not want taxpayer dollars to pay for abortion. Another report just released by Rasmussen found 53 percent of voters favor a ban on abortion coverage in any health insurance plan that receives federal subsidies.

Those upset about our amendment in the House legislation do not think I should be voting pro-life. They fail to mention it was the support from pro-life Democrats that provided the critical votes needed to pass health care reform in the House.

Though our amendment maintains current law and is squarely in line with public opinion, the Senate failed to pass similar language. Instead, the Senate bill includes an amendment that would implement a dramatic shift in federal policy that would allow the federal government to subsidize insurance policies with abortion coverage and recognize abortion as a benefit in a federal health plan.

It would also segregate funds to pay for abortion coverage in a way that has never been allowed under the Hyde language.

While many pro-life House Democrats and I wish to see health care coverage for all Americans, the proposed Senate language is unacceptable because it allows federal funds to subsidize plans that cover abortions. I will continue to work to ensure the final health care reform bill considered in the House and Senate maintains current law of no public funding for abortion.

Finally, I have long been an advocate of health care reform. Too many Americans have gone far too long without access to basic health care services they need, and it is past time to put an end to that injustice. But the key issues of fairness, competition and cost must be addressed in the final health care bill.

While it is time to pass health care reform legislation in this nation, we must not overturn more than 30 years of federal policy preventing public funding of abortion.

January 12, 2010

“I saw a documentary on abortion called “South Dakota.” I don’t have the ability to debate abortion. I am adopted. I have a child. We have also lost babies. So when I understand that people do that on purpose I don’t have the ability to debate that rationally, so I don’t. I talk about it with people that agree with me, that believe what we believe, that we concur, that we feel energized and we love babies, but I don’t debate that. I was watching the movie “South Dakota,” there was a woman on there talking and she is in her early 70’s. She is an abortion doctor and has probably performed probably 60,000 abortions personally. It makes me literally sick to my stomach. I went home and just went to bed. I was so depressed, I was so sick to my stomach. But she was talking about her time in Africa when she was 18 years old and doing a medical missions. She was in a trip over there doing some kind of humanitarian effort and a friend of hers got pregnant. She was from a tribe that would have stoned her and killed her had she come back being pregnant and unmarried. Her friend went and got an unsafe abortion and came home that night and developed a fever and started hemorrhaging and literally died in her arms. She was 19 when this took place, and in her early 70’s recalling this. and literally weeping on camera talking about that, weeping and it was a bitter, hurtful, mourning, sorrowful weeping. And I thought, “Why would I ever beat that woman up with my knowledge about the unborn?” Do I agree with what she is doing, absolutely not. Do I understand her reaction towards seeing that, I do, I understand. It doesn’t mean I agree. It doesn’t mean I won’t fight against abortion for the rest of my life with everything I’ve got. If i met her I would put my arms around her and say, “I am so sorry for your loss.” and try to find some commonality that would allow us to have a conversation together. I don’t want to debate that woman. That would be a terrible Christian witness. Hurting people need to have people put their arms around them. “

January 7, 2010

Christ did not come to bring religious devotion or spiritual discipline or even an ethical code (though a life of devotion and moral beauty will come as fruits of knowing him). Rather, he came to substitute his moral perfection for our moral failures and to bear our deserved penalty by his death on our behalf. Life, godliness, spirituality, and goodness come to us only as we hold out to him the empty hands of faith and as we begin to love him in response to his love for us. Any other message should be an abomination to us, for it is a different gospel.

January 6, 2010

Driving into work I heard about this study that was done that shows that kids who are spanked do better in school and generally lead happier lives as they grow older.

According to the research, children spanked up to the age of 6 were likely as teenagers to perform better at school and were more likely to carry out volunteer work and to want to go to college than their peers who had never been physically disciplined.

But children who continued to be spanked into adolescence showed clear behavioral problems.

Children’s groups and lawmakers in the UK have tried several times to have physical chastisement by parents outlawed, the Times of London reported. They claim it is a form of abuse that causes long-term harm to children and say banning it would send a clear signal that violence is unacceptable.

However, Marjorie Gunnoe, professor of psychology at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, said her study showed there was insufficient evidence to deny parents the freedom to choose how they discipline their children.

“The claims made for not spanking children fail to hold up. They are not consistent with the data,” said Gunnoe. “I think of spanking as a dangerous tool, but there are times when there is a job big enough for a dangerous tool. You just don’t use it for all your jobs.”

Research into the effects of spanking was previously hampered by the inability to find enough children who had never been spanked, given its past cultural acceptability.

But Gunnoe’s work drew on a study of 2,600 people, about a quarter of whom had never been physically chastised.